Author Topic: The etiquette- and ethics- of reporting online posts  (Read 1170 times)

Offline Vanquished

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 37
    • View Profile
Answers to questions in the OP.
My answer to question one was going to start with “If the poster was posting on behalf of the company then...” but from all the replies I’ve come to believe you are talking about an individual posting as an individual, outside of work. So I’ll answer as if that is the case.

And at this point, I’ve already publically called wiseacrebrewery the Ministry of Hate, so you probably know where this is going.

ETA: I’m being a bit harsh here, the harshness is not directed at Whiterose, who is merely asking questions. The harshness is coming from the fact that I can’t believe free speech is up for debate. It is the fall of the civilization.

Questions in OP

1) Never. When did you become the thought police?

2) How much credibility should who have? The intention behind what? Are we supposing we are so godlike we can know what people’s intentions are?

3) Seriously? If you are policing peoples point of view, what would their salary or education have to do with anything? Will you treat those who didn’t go to college as if they are imbeciles who can’t be responsible for their thoughts because they’re not educated?
Would you report someone with a high salary for wrongthink because you figure they’ve saved some money so if you ruin their livelihood they’ll recover eventually?
These are just guesses at what this question may be about. (And again, not suggesting whiterose is endorsing these thoughts but doing some investigating)

4)  info@ or contact admin and tell them what the problem is and ask who you should speak too. If you’re going to report someone for wrongthink and you think that’s ok, why are you sneaking around company directories to find “the right person”? If companies take this seriously, and it’s proven that very many do, than the first person of contact will get you to where you need to go.

5) Damn, I forget the question and I can’t see it, but what I have written down while I was reading it is “why are these people being persecuted for their thoughts/views?

Finally, all the examples you have given need a committee (aka The Ministry of Hate) to decide 1. What may or not be satire, 2) which opinion is the right one 3) How long an opinion will be right and 4) Is there a difference between opinion or truth? 5) Have you seriously investigated this person or are you reacting to a word or phrase that triggers a reaction?

Does no one see how dangerous, cruel, harmful and damaging this practice is? Who are any of the people who do this to judge?

Has no one learned from Covington, Jussie Smolett (by the by, no one was denying that the crime, if it took place, would have been a hate crime, they were simply doubtful that the crime in question took place in the manner suggested), Or Jasmine Barnes just to name a few. (Jasmine Barnes killed by a drive by shooting, sister understandably said she saw a white man in a red truck speed away, media everywhere social or not immediately “Hate Crime! White Supremist!! Why does this keep happening!?”  It literally never happened before, a white supremist driving around at 7am looking for a little black girl to shoot, bloody hell! Turned out to be two black guys, but that’s not the point)

I see ex-Muslim women called racists for speaking out against a religion that abused them, I see several women being called transphobic, who have nothing against trans people but have a different understanding of what trans is, I see people who have never uttered a racist word or statement being called racist because of legitimate concerns they have in their own hometowns, which others haven’t bothered to even thinking about before grabbing the pitchforks and torches.

Who are any of us to decide what thoughts are right, what thoughts are allowed, who is using satire, who has experienced a great deal of abuse?

How dare anyone mess with a persons livelihood at the risk of also ruining their lives and their families because they didn’t like what the person posted on their own individual social media whatever.

Dismiss. Block. Move on.

Dangerous, cruel, damaging, toxic behaviour. This is the concept behind the Hitler Youth League. All of the people who claim to be against fascism behave in fascist manners eg: Report. Beat. Burn. Brownshirts. Absolutely horrible to behave this way.

Totally against it.
Agree Agree x 5 View List

Offline Lynn2000

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 624
    • View Profile
I think there are definitely circumstances when someone should be called out for their behavior online. A lot of hate and active prejudice thrives because it's left to fester on its own. That being said, it is also very possible to go too far, and get someone punished or embarrassed based on a misunderstanding.

This morning I read about the editor of a scientific journal, a physician, who was removed from that position after a homophobic email from him surfaced. He had been sent an email advertising a local ballet, which had an image of two men holding hands, and he wrote them back to be removed from their mailing list, going on about how they were promoting homosexuality and sodomy, using words like filth, etc.. It was a very charged email, from the quotes I read. I don't recall how the email made its way into the public, if the ballet company sent it to the press, or to the journal, or to the university which is the man's primary employer. On the one hand, this was private email correspondence, except not totally since he sent it to a company, and the university pointed out that he wasn't using the university email (I think) or identifying himself by his job there.

On the other, part of his defense statement was that his personal views about homosexuality--which in his own words are pretty virulent--"had no effect on how he treated his queer patients," or something like that. Which is just absurdly hard to believe--yeah, I think gay people are filth who are trying to corrupt the world, but when I have a gay person as a patient, I'm totally cool with that and don't treat them any differently. Uh-huh. To me this is a situation where I think his views should be made public, so people can choose if they want to be his patient or not--a doctor can have a tremendous amount of power and influence over a patient, especially when they are very vulnerable, and a lot of people would no longer trust this man to make decisions that could literally be life-saving. He might, totally unconsciously, decide to give up on a gay patient but keep suggesting new treatments for a straight one, for example. I'm guessing he's primarily involved in research, since he works for a university, and this could be an unconscious bias that affects the interpretation of his research as well. Then you get into stuff about how he is as a boss/mentor--does he treat a gay employee or student differently? Would he choose not to hire one based only on that? He's the one who chose to open up about his views in a pretty colorful manner (he could have just said, "Please remove me from your mailing list"), so now there could be all kinds of questions asked about their trickle down effect.

Had I been the person at the ballet company who received that reply email, I'd be pretty tempted to do something about it, whether sending it to his employers or the press. I'm curious about the rest of the story, because if he really didn't use his university email or mention his job there, it would have taken a little bit of work to find out who he was (just Googling, I mean, but intentional), to see if he had employers who would even care (this is Louisville, KY, where I have relatives btw) or if he was someone the press might care about. And I can't believe his was the only negative response they got to that imagery, in Louisville. Apologies if I'm mischaracterizing Louisville.

Offline Vanquished

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 37
    • View Profile
First of all, there is a difference between “calling out” someone for their remarks on social media and calling their employer to highlight what you’ve seen and interpreted with the goal of hurting the person financially.

What I was responding to above, and I’m not sure if Lynn2000 was responding to me, or just adding her thoughts, was “when is it ok to contact someone’s employers when you see something you deem to be (hate speech? Inappropriate? Wrongthink? An opinion that goes against the opinion of the many?) on social media.

If the question is “when is it ok to call out or challenge something that someone posted on social media?” Then my answer would be every single time. 
It is beyond absurd that a editor of a scientific journal would behave in the way that Lynn described, not only that a person of science should think this way, but that they thought they would get away with saying what they said without challenge, and also, that they were unaware of the “unsubscribe” option.

And clearly, since Lynn has read quotes from the email, this person has been called out. There’s no need to call a persons employer, when there is an army of people on social media with lots of different opinions ready to both nicely debate a point, or pick up the tar barrell and bags of feathers.  Totally different from directly contacting their employer.

What I would do, I only have Twitter, is first research the legitimacy of this even happening, while keeping an open mind that it may very well have.  But it is suspect and just so silly that I would do quite a bit of research before directly challenging the person. But I think it’s ok in the meantime to say how absurd it is for a man of science to first, have this view about homosexuals and second, have never seen a ballet.  No man who is a homophobe would be attending the ballet in the first place!
I love the ballet, it’s beautiful! But to be fair it’s a ball fest! No man that afraid of other men’s parts could sit through the whole thing. So how did this email exchange happen in thie first place?

Anyway, yes, call people out on social media, post emails if it doesn’t have a confidential clause, but don’t directly call someone’s boss to report them.

I’m not trying to be funny when I mention the Hitler Youth League.  It was both an actual active scouts type thing to produce strong citizens (or what the Brown shirts would consider strong citizens) and a way to “re-educate the youth of Germany”. Meaning they would tell these kids what was Right, what was True, and taught them to report on their friends, neighbours and parents.

The first thing a fascist state does is stop people’s abilities to express opposition.  Those who do are punished. And it starts slowly, the first thing being that they are punished financially. There jobs are taken from them, they cannot run business, they cannot make a living.

It’s what Germany first did to the Jews (and others) and I think it is wrong no matter what your ideology is. Those who think the National Socialist Party of Germany was wrong to do what they did, because it was based in hysteria (let’s not get into to the gender origins of that word right now) and hate, but think that it’s ok for those to do the same to others because they believe their ideology is based in reason and love, need to do much more research.

As John Stewart Mill said (paraphrase)” If all in society were agreed on the truth and beauty and value of one proposition, except for one person, all except one person, it would be most important for that one heretic to be heard, because we would all benefit from his one outrageous or even appalling view.”

You can imagine that if the German regime  had allowed free speech, many working class people who had lost their jobs, struggled to feed their hungry children and believed what everyone was allowed to say, that the Jews had plotted this situation for their own hateful gain, would hear different views. Would hear them often. Could engage in conversations, could think of things they hadn’t otherwise thought of, could consider that maybe what they thought they knew to be true, was not entirely true.

When Michael Brown was shot by police, the world heard he was unarmed, innocent, his back facing the police officer and he had his hands up when the officer fired.
Witnesses that saw otherwise were afraid to speak up because they honestly were afraid of being both physically attacked and socially or politically attacked. It went against the narrative that the people who told the lie wanted the world to hear.
When it finally came out, it changed the lives of so many black people. Michael Brown had just committed a violent robbery, was facing the officer and grabbing for the officers gun when he was shot.
So many black people thought, we were lied too, and maybe this whole thing is a lie. Maybe when I walk down the street and someone glares they’ve been doing that with everyone of every colour. Maybe I’m not a perpetual victim.  And these people spoke out.
And those who don’t like what these people are thinking call them racist, uncle toms and other much worse words, and go around scream and deplatforming those who oppose their opinions.
So you have one group of blacks (American, Canadian and British)that think they are at all times victims of a systemic racist system and the non-blacks the that side with them.
And you have the blacks (in the West) who believe that the world has reached a point where, while they may at times face a few more hurdles than others, the system is as fair as it can be and there is nothing they can’t surmount.

So who is right? Well neither.  I’ve done the research and both can be proven to be true.  So why would anyone think that it’s ok to call someone’s employer and say, you know what? Coleman (a black man) thinks that Black Lives Matter is a horrible, dangerous organization. He said so on his twitter account. Therefore, he’s racist. Therefore your organization shouldn’t employ him anymore.

And how do you handle religion? Who is the one who can tell the rest of us what is ok and what is not and what is protected by holy matters? Because it is, without a doubt, in the Quran, and the Old Testament, states that homosexuality is a sin. We have tried to separate religion and state, for these types of reasons. The majority agree that homosexuals are entitled to all the same human right as everyone else. There are Jews, for example, who think that homosexuality is a sin and will openly say so.  Is that to be punished by taking away their livelihood because of wrongthink? What if those same Jews believe that god is the one who will be the judge of what happens, so while they believe it to be a sin, they are happy that homosexuals have the same rights as all other humans and treat them with respect and kindness because they don’t see themselves to be the judge of other, but they do believe what is in the doctrine.  Is this a person to be reported because they are sharing their doctrine, that you deem to be hate, on social media?

What about the ex-Muslim women all over Twitter that have been stating that hijab culture is **** culture.  Women who have grown up being told that if they are harassed, molested or raped, it will have been their own fault, that they weren’t properly covered? Are they not allowed a voice? Do you get to decide that are wrong?

What about the Muslim women who feel like they are judged for their hijab and voice thei love for it and their religious choice. Do they get a voice? Do you get to judge if they should be heard?

And finally, so bloody what if some feminists feel like their womenhood is taken away when all women who say they are women are women?  I personally don’t care about that at all, I’m perfectly happy to accept you’re a woman if you say you’re a woman despite you biological make up.
But I see women who disagree getting kicked out of pubs, thrown out of organizations and yes, wiseacrebrewery, fires because aloof a politely worded opposition to this view.

Probably no one has read this far but I’ll state it again it is a dangerous and harmful and hateful thing to try to ruin a persons livlihood for having thoughts you don’t agree with or find horrible.

But call them out everytime, question them, debate them, make sure you question yourself, make sure you have a reason to know what you know.  Do research, prove yourself. Don’t shut down the other.

There are some truths in things we find to be deplorable.

Offline Lynn2000

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 624
    • View Profile
Here's the article I read about the journal editor, btw:

He sent the email from his personal (not work/university) account. It looks like the email was first made public on some kind of blog, and the sender (Bolli) confirmed to them he had sent it--so I guess that's kind of like sending it to the press.

The American Heart Association removed him from his position as editor-in-chief of one of their journals. His main job is being a professor at the University of Louisville; I don't know that one really gets paid as a journal editor, it's usually done more for the prestige, but certainly it was a professional thing that has now been taken away from him.

Offline Lynn2000

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 624
    • View Profile
Vanquished, I can see you are really passionate about this subject. And, I get where you are coming from on certain points--encouraging people to "report" on one another, for example. Society, and subcultures within that, define what they think is the "correct" behavior/opinions to espouse, and this certainly changes over time. Witness, for example, US government scientists not being able to discuss human-caused climate change, because the current administration does not believe in it. They could have been at risk of losing their jobs if they posted publicly about human-caused climate change and identified themselves as government employees, and a third party took note of this and pointed it out to the authorities. This is something I think is wrong, but our current government leaders are saying it has to be that way, and just a few years ago with different people in charge, it was handled differently.

But, it would still be their own actions that started it, by posting publicly in defiance of their bosses' orders. So I think that's a very important component of the situation--it's not someone being "reported" after a private conversation in their own home, or even in a restaurant, is overheard. In this case we're talking about comments that are meant to be seen by "the public," blasted out to the world on Twitter or Facebook or something like that. Even Bolli's homophobic email wasn't sent to a friend, it was sent to a commercial company in response to their advertising, so there really isn't an expectation of privacy there. And, people need to be aware that their public comments (attached to their real name) could get back to other people and cause hurt--whether it's a friend's hurt feelings because you insulted their outfit, or your employer looking askance at you because you posted something that goes against the employer's mission.

In all cases, I'm talking about something that really did happen--the comment may have been taken out of context in a larger posted conversation, but it's accurate that the person did post those words. Obviously lying about what someone did to get them in trouble is not appropriate at all. I think there has to be proof provided, like unaltered screenshots of the whole conversation, that gives the comment in context as well. And, I like to think--naively, I'm sure, as we have discussed situations that got out of hand already in this thread--that a report to an employer is not an automatic firing, that the employer will investigate, talk to the poster, get their side and their explanation, talk to the people who work directly with them, etc..

Like in the example you give about thinking homosexuality is a sin in the religious world, but that only God has the authority to sort that out, so on Earth homosexuals should be given full rights, etc.--if someone just caught part of that posted conversation, it could look pretty bad, but if they saw the whole thing, or if the poster had a chance to explain what they meant, it might turn out okay for them. Personally I think they should know that it's a pretty hot-button thing to post and handle it very carefully and be extremely clear about what they really mean--witness the recent controversy with Liam Neeson and his story that (in my interpretation) was supposed to be anti-racism, but he explained it poorly and came off as racist instead to many, and seemed surprised there was any problem. If you're going to go around posting/commenting publicly with your name attached, you need to have enough awareness of the world to realize when you've got a hot potato on your hands and handle it accordingly--not by keeping quiet, but by being aware of and sensitive to misinterpretation. If you are flippant or muddled, it's just going to make a bigger mess.

Are perfect decisions always going to be made? No, because we are just humans. We can't all agree on what the perfect decision even is! There are always rumors, and lies, and exaggerations, and misinformation, and it's not easy to sort through that. Like I got the "AIDS in Africa" tweet story wrong, because I only had the amalgamated early impression of the story from the media, before it had been sorted out. I didn't even realize there was something to be wrong about there, but now I have learned otherwise. So I hope that if an employer gets a report about an employee, they don't just have a kneejerk reaction, but rather investigate it and ask questions. Sometimes the media can make that more difficult, if they put pressure on an employer to do something fast and dramatic; other times the media is the way the employer even finds out there's an issue.

Offline Vanquished

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 37
    • View Profile
Ahh Lynn! I am passionate about this subject! And I see that you are religious, and I respect your right and your passion on that issue. I hope that you will try to understand a couple of things in my response.

1) I wish you all the great heartfelt goodness that this ideology may give you.
2) it is yours to have but not the states to demand (I think you will agree with me on that)
3) it is the free speech issue I debate the most, so it is what I will be using as an example and the thoughts I have on the matter may upset you. But the thoughts you have on the matter may upset me. So who gets to decide who is allowed to talk openly about it?
4) I’ve grown up in the UK and live in Canada, not heavily religious countries and I am often surprised at how religious Americans are. I will explain my interpretation of things only in response to your argument of “misinterpretation” not because I’m trying to slam you or your ideology but to explain that it can be just as hurtful to those who are not believers as the non believers view may be hurtful to you.

Yes. Everyone should be responsive for the views they put forward publicly. I totally agree. If anyone objects, a as respectful as possible conversation should be held. This doesn’t always work. And sometimes we can get emotional and reactionary. So I thing a request must first be sent, If this is an employer or a person in real life. But a response on social media, should probably take one a minute or two to consider, no matter how absurd, how the opposer came to their conclusion and at least give them the respect that they have probably put some thought into it.

These personal views have been given a platform before anyone had a chance to think about it. But I believe that posting your personal views on social media is a freedom we all should have. The views do not represent the company one works for, and the views should not be presented while on paid time.
If a company wants thought control, in that one may never publicly expressed their views on any topic, it should be in the contract before hiring.  And I believe such a contract is a breech of human rights. That is my argument.

You mention that those posting views publicly should be mindful that their opinions may hurt someone.  Who is to judge what won’t hurt anyone. And who is to stop one from expressing what has already hurt them?

The amount of Brexitors that feel betrayed by the current turn of events in the UK have expressed their views. Note the word Betrayed. They feel it strongly. Their parliament and their monarchy have betrayed them. But stayers are hurt by these comments and suggestions and voice their opposition. What place does an employer have in this debate?

I believe that individual social media accounts should have the same freedom that Queens Park once has. One may come to this place and state how one really feels. And what better place to be challenged by those who disagree? You really get an entire spectrum of arguments, it really makes you think, it really makes you research, it makes you wonder, am I as sure as I felt I t he first place?
So yes it’s public. But the views expressed are not on behalf of the company you work for, or expressed on company time, and I believe we have aright to be individuals and should have to sign up to never oppose the ideology of others just to make a living.

I don’t believe that Liam Neesons story was told badly, or that it appeared racist. It appeared to me to clearly condemn racism. You disagree. Isn’t it good that we should be able to discuss the matter, rather than one group of people saying “It is racist and no o e else will disagree, without punishment”. Or “It condemns racism and no one shall disagree without punishment”. ?

I actually respect those who go around publicly talking about their views, even if they oppose mine. Because first, they are being honest (hindering free speech means making people lie) and secondly, I can publicly oppose them.

I don’t believe that “misinterpretation” should be met with sensitivity. And here is my argument with religion as the basis.
I am an atheist. Many religious beliefs seem barbaric, cruel and sadistic.
Would you believe that I oppose religion regularly in live, public debates and have found myself on more than a few occasions sticking up for some of the religious?
I may see some of religious beliefs as barbaric, but I’m told by one believer I have “ misinterpreted” and what happens is another believer will accuse the first of “misinterpretation” with something like “we don’t believe that anymore”. Well who is we and who made you the boss of what people should believe when reading or ignoring doctrine?
It’s impossible to be the one who decides what the correct interpretation is, and to speak for all. And it’s impossible to worry about hurt feelings, which is something else you mentioned.
Plenty will protect the sensitivity of the religious, but what about the hurt feelings or offends the non-religious deal with? Are our feelings not with this sensitivity you speak of?
I find the act of circumcision, barbaric, offensive and upsetting. If it’s a boy or a girl, a baby or a child, I think it’s horrific and brutal.
That someone would hold a baby or child in their arms and think, how wonderful! All I have to do now is take a knife to their genitals, because once a man in the dessert heard a voice telling him to sacrifice his only son, a son that I interpret (misinterpret?) was only given to him for this purpose, and this glorious man was willing to slaughter his child. And such a thing is celebrated for millennia by the mutilation of children.
Why is it that this thing that causes me such offence is brushed under the rug? Why is it the distress I feel when I think of it matters less than the distress anyone else feels when their own views are opposed?

I want all humans to have the right to express their views and I strongly believe, only in this way can any of us make an informed opinion. We can dismiss, oppose, be hurt or offended, but as I said originally, I give no one the right to decide what I can or can’t hear, read or see, or what I can think, question or say.

Down with the Ministry of Truth. No primate gets to decide above all others what is truth. We have human rights in place. Let’s continue.

Offline Lynn2000

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 624
    • View Profile
Vanquished, I feel like we actually agree on a lot of things, but I wonder if some things are getting confused?

I am religious, which I may have mentioned in other posts, perhaps even in this thread, but I didn't mention it in the post you responded to. If you're referring to my example of homosexuality being a sin but also something for God, not humans, to deal with--that was an example from your own post, not something I personally espouse. I thought it was a good example of something where people who first read it, or only read part, could easily misconstrue it as the person saying homosexuals are bad and shouldn't have civil rights, when in fact the person was saying the exact opposite. So if there is an open conversation between people, or between the original commenter and their employer, where they can explain themselves fully, the complainers might realize the commenter's position is functionally not so different from their own. For example, I would say I vehemently disagree that homosexuality is a sin, so I can never get behind that part; but if the person truly thinks it should be up to God to judge that later, and is willing to fight for homosexuals to have full civil rights, perhaps we can work together on the pragmatic aspects we both agree with, and set aside the philosophical parts where we disagree.

Also, I don't have a problem with Liam Neeson's story. I thought it was a very profound and powerful admission of his own racism at one point in time and how he learned from that. But, it's a fact there was an outcry over his story, so many other people thought it was told poorly, and he seemed surprised by this. Winterlight and I were discussing it earlier in this thread. My position here was that people should be aware of hot-button issues before they go commenting on them publicly, especially someone like a celebrity on TV who is going to be heard by many people, and they should speak carefully and make their points clearly so there's the least possible chance of being offensive or misunderstood. Out of billions of people, of course someone is still going to claim they're offended, but you can try to reduce your chances by being sensitive, rather than flippant or dismissive of concerns.

Certainly, one cannot worry about or take responsibility for the feelings of everyone in the world who claims to be "hurt" by something. But I think that's what etiquette discussions are for, to try and get a collective feeling about what is reasonable and what isn't. Like if you post on Facebook for all to see, "Aunt Myrtle's dress makes her look so fat!" you are a fool to think it won't get back to Aunt Myrtle, and I think her offense is justified and you owe her an apology. If we go back before social media, before electricity even, this has always been something humans have to think about. Perhaps you can tell your best friend something privately, in confidence. But if you stand up in the village square and shout, "Aunt Myrtle's dress makes her look so fat!" you have been rude and indiscreet, and should apologize.

I believe in free speech. I don't like censorship, things like banned books and so forth. But "free speech" doesn't mean "free of all consequences." You may offend a friend with your speech. You may offend your employer or colleagues. I think there should be very few instances where you actually get arrested or otherwise punished by the government, but private entities such as friends or employers have more freedom of their own, to decide if they want to keep associating with you.

So I think this thread is a very interesting discussion of where the line might be drawn, what the consequences might be of this or that being said, how likely it is an employer would fire someone, etc.. For example, we've already discussed how many public schools are sensitive to how their teachers are seen in the community, and might (fairly or not) punish or dismiss someone for behavior the school thinks reflects badly on them. Sometimes I think, "Yeah, ACLU, grab this person and fight that firing, that's stupid!" and other times I think, "WTF, how did this person stay in their job so long? Good riddance!" depending on the case.

Offline whiterose

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 136
    • View Profile
Vanquished- Question Number 5 was:

5) If there is no direct link to the name- for example, if it was posted on a message board using an internet handle instead of on social media with your real name and picture- how much extra evidence is necessary? Should this even happen- or would it always be considered petty vindictiveness in order to get someone you dislike into trouble?

And regarding question 3:

Should people in certain occupations- such as education or health care- be expected to be good role models 24/7, while people in other occupations such as sales or factory work be cut some more slack? Should the exact same gray area post be reported on a teacher but not on a tailor, on a doctor but not a janitor?
I have pet mice!

Offline Cushy Butterfield

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 42
    • View Profile
IMO reporting someone's online behavior to their employer should only be done in the most egregious circumstances. Are they posting, "I hate (group)" or "Death to all (group)"? or marching with the Klan, or telling dumb racist/sexist jokes, or using unacceptable/outdated language (e.g., "that's so gay," "that's so re****ed," "the colored guy," "the crip parking space") out of ignorance? The first two I would consider reporting. The latter two I might address with a "dude, not cool" comment or private message.

There are a lot of hateful people out there who need to suffer some consequences for their hateful behavior. But there are also a lot of people who haven't gotten the memo that XYZ language is offensive so they continue to use it. I live in a progressive Northern state and know people who still refer to African-Americans as "colored" because that was the term we used 55-60 years ago.

And yes, I think it does depend on the person's position. Are they in a high-profile, representing-the-organization post or a menial job? I don't think most people would care if a school janitor shares dumb, racist Facebook posts on their own time (provided they do not engage in racist behavior on the job), but if a teacher or principal or superintendent did it, that's another matter.

Agree Agree x 1 View List